Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 335 posts

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#281

Post by unityByFreedom »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #260
stjohnswarts wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't agree. It's their platform and they can leave up what they like. When someone starts advocating violence, treason, assassination then they can shut down that account. Also in national emergencies (like our current one with right wing extremists) it is also justified. I don't want section 230 undone, it will do far more damage than good.

Who did Sci-Hub advocate for assassination? What violence did they try to incite? What treasonous act did they commit? This conversation is about twitter nuking Sci-Hub. I understand the events you are referring to but you cannot use them as justification for actions like suspending Sci-Hub.

There probably is some Twitter-backed research on sci-hub but that's not the point. They can lawfully ban whoever they want as long as the basis is not race, sex etc.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#282

Post by takeda »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #276
konjin wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually isps weren't common carriers until 2015 and aren't again today: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/14...

And since 2015 social media platforms have had no real competition.

I used Facebook in 2006 and it already was taking over MySpace. I don't know where you got 2015 from, because how ISPs are treated has no impact on social media.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#283

Post by ssakamoto »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #260
stjohnswarts wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't agree. It's their platform and they can leave up what they like. When someone starts advocating violence, treason, assassination then they can shut down that account. Also in national emergencies (like our current one with right wing extremists) it is also justified. I don't want section 230 undone, it will do far more damage than good.

Who did Sci-Hub advocate for assassination? What violence did they try to incite? What treasonous act did they commit? This conversation is about twitter nuking Sci-Hub. I understand the events you are referring to but you cannot use them as justification for actions like suspending Sci-Hub.

Sci-Hub Is a PRIVATE Company. They can ban who they like. Period.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#284

Post by takeda »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #279
takeda wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you are mixing up net neutrality and a platform. Net Neutrality ensures that ISP do what the name says, providing Internet service without interfering with it, like restricting which sites you can visit. A platform like twitter, facebook, parler. Is something that was created from scratch and is owned by these companies. As of now it's not their duty to allow everyone in. And enforcing it is stepping on their freedom…

> perhaps the government supposed to provide such public platform. Nah, inviting the government to moderate these platforms is the last thing we want. It's bad enough there are only a handful of them, we definitely don't want all that power under one person's control.

I agree, personally I think POTUS and other government officials should even be banned (not by twitter but by law) to officially uses such private forums.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#285

Post by d0100 »

sitzkrieg wrote: post #123
mc32 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. They’re not violating copyright via Twitter. They should have a voice via Twitter, no matter the accusation. Do accused murderers [as opposed to convicted] get their Twitter suspended? This is ridiculous.

at the end of the day twitter has the right to close whatever account they so choose

Until we the people choose how the day ends by regulating huge companies that act as social "town squares"

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#286

Post by lliamander »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #172
koolk3ychain wrote: post #124

I hate that I have to preface this, but I'm a democrat who voted for Biden and doesn't question the outcome of the election. That said, our society does not need this kind of gerrymandering in our online discourse. People need to forget politics for a second and realize the true harm companies like this are inflicting by effectively playing god.

I think the message of holding social media accountable for the harm it causes everybody is being drowned out by the hyperbolic statements like "effectively playing god". They are not playing god. They own a platform, they are determining who can and cannot speak on that platform. That's the same thing every news paper, internet forum, email server, BBS, public bulletin board, or really any publishing of any kind has…

You are not entitled to use a platform, but there are plenty of reasons why a platform may be liable for kicking you off.

There's the obvious case if they should discriminate against users based on a protected class.

Platforms have also been sued for things like tortuous interference and deceptive practices as a consequence of deplatforming users.

If a user engages in activity that is either clearly illegal or contrary to clear and sensible Terms of Service, removing them is obviously a fine and good thing.

Outside of those circumstances though, I would not take it as a given that there is no recourse if a user is deplatformed.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#287

Post by apple_innocent »

takeda wrote: post #269
apple_innocent wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These massive websites/broadcast SMS cannot have it both ways. They cannot seek the protections of being "critical infrastructure" of any sort, common carrier, public forum, etc. and then, at the same time, disable user accounts for any reason just like any other private website. They have to pick one or the other. The arguments I am seeing online are folks who have chosen one or the other and are arguing from their…

you are mixing up net neutrality and a platform. Net Neutrality ensures that ISP do what the name says, providing Internet service without interfering with it, like restricting which sites you can visit. A platform like twitter, facebook, parler. Is something that was created from scratch and is owned by these companies. As of now it's not their duty to allow everyone in. And enforcing it is stepping on their freedom…

If U.S. government provided a platform, then these "free speech" claims might have a basis in law. IMO, the issues would be easier to grapple with.

Instead these enourmous websites are filling what is now an obvious void in public services for communication.

Perhaps I should not have used the term "common carrier" as that term has very specific meaning, and only in certain jurisdictions. What I mean is common carrier-like treatment by the public. People talk about these websites as if they are public services. Messenger apps are treated like they are interchangeable with telephone service.

Practically speaking (i.e., how they are being used in practice), maybe, but beyond that I refuse to see them that way. These are not anywhere close to public services, IMO.

Even the trend of websites that we would otherwise see as "public websites" containing "public information" that urge visitors to create "accounts" or "profiles" and "log in" is a disturbing evolution to me, blurring the line between public and private websites. Traditionally, a website that is protected by a password is not "open to the public". If "accounts" are required then disabling the account can disable "public access". Accounts can be disabled for any reason.

Of course, that trend is probably driven by the commercialisation of the web as an advertiser's wet dream.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#288

Post by unityByFreedom »

takeda wrote: post #284
unityByFreedom wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> perhaps the government supposed to provide such public platform. Nah, inviting the government to moderate these platforms is the last thing we want. It's bad enough there are only a handful of them, we definitely don't want all that power under one person's control.

I agree, personally I think POTUS and other government officials should even be banned (not by twitter but by law) to officially uses such private forums.

Nah that would put incumbents at a disadvantage against their competition.

And, forcing them to use more official accounts like @POTUS might give existing office-holders undue advantage.

I think drawing the line at inciting violence is proper. We do need more competition at the platform level and I think this comes when we establish a competitive environment among ISPs and content conglomerates by reinstating net neutrality and discouraging regional broadband monopolies.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#289

Post by CryptoGhost »

cwkoss wrote: post #31
abnry wrote: post #21

I don't support piracy. So I don't support Sci-hub. But I believe that publishers are bilking the public and that publicly funded research should be made freely available. The real way to fix this is to disrupt the reputational incentives academics (and deans supporting this) have to keep publishing in these journals. For some reason, I think this is an unpopular opinion on HN.

For most academic researchers, publishing is a net cost: they aren't getting royalties when people pay to read their work. "Piracy" of these documents does not deprive the creators of anything. The only entities it hurts are the organizations of questionable social value who exist by gatekeeping this information.

No one is putting the proverbial gun to academic researchers heads to use these publishers.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#290

Post by unityByFreedom »

takeda wrote: post #282
unityByFreedom wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And since 2015 social media platforms have had no real competition.

I used Facebook in 2006 and it already was taking over MySpace. I don't know where you got 2015 from, because how ISPs are treated has no impact on social media.

2015 came from the parent comment. I'm saying the current tech platform powers got a lot stronger in the last 4 years.
Post reply on HN